Keywords: Arkansas Trial, Creationism, Creation Science,
young-earth creationists, index fossils,
SOME
IMPORTANT CHALLENGES FOR THE CREATIONIST
MOVEMENT IN NORTH AMERICA
by
Daniel E. Wonderly
May, 1987
Presented at the Sixth Annual Baltimore Creation
Convention of June 4-6, 1987
Background of the Author
Statement of the Author concerning
his book, God's Time-Records in
Ancient Sediments
Abstract
Introduction
Part I: The Necessity of Improving our Image in the Eyes of Public
Educators and other public leaders
[001] Creationists have the image of
being obscurantists who avoid most of the data of scientific research.
... In the 1970's the situation was considerably different. At that
time many public educators were honestly trying to listen to
creationists and to figure out a way by which they could cooperate with
them... Then at the Arkansas trial the whole picture was changed. In
that trial, creationists went on record as refusing to recognize large
bodies of carefully collected geologic and astronomic data -- in
addition to the (very proper) rejection of the many alleged evidences
for macroevolution and abiogenesis.
During the trial there was a rather prominent emphasis on the
young-earth beliefs of the creationists, since the teaching of a very
young earth was a part of the written law which was being challenged.
[The author calls this view "Creationism."]
[004 - regarding index fossils, quoting Schafersman, 1983] "Index
fossils do help determine the age of a given rock formation, but only
by correlation from a type section of rock that is first defined to be
a certain age. Fossils, by themselves, do not determine an age, so no
attribute of theirs, including evolution, is necessary to date a rock.
Creationists believe that geologists use a fossil's supposed 'stage of
evolution' to determine age, but nothing could be further from the
truth."
[006] The leading young-earth creationists, e.g. Morris and Whitcomb,
have repeatedly insisted that they do not invoke special miraculous
action of God to accomplish the deposition of sediments during the
Flood. Yet they and dozens of other creationist authors continue to
describe the effects of the Flood and its supposed formation of the
main parts of the earth's sedimentary cover, in ways which demand
either many special miracles or the complete altering of a large number
of physical laws....
Part II. The Necessity of Beginning to Give the Students of our
Christian Schools a Proper VIew of Science and of Scientific Research
[011] Christians don't need to be
afraid of the scientific method of research. We approach scientific
research with some basic presuppositions, e.g., that matter was created
by God, and that the world around us is rationally organized and
understandable to man, whose mind is designed "in the image of" the
Creator. Then we go to work searching for answers from God's
natural revelation. ... The
Bible is never really in opposition to the characteristics of the
natural world around us, for God does not contradict himself.
[013 -- fallacious ideas of young-earth creationists]
(1) great thicknesses of soft sediments
could be pushed up and folded at steep inclinations
without amalgamating the
layers, and without crushing the shells of delicate, thin-shelled
animals to be fossilized.
(2) most kinds of sediments were able to become quickly lithified after
deposition.
-- most types of sediments require at
least hundreds of years for appreciable lithification, even under
favorable circumstances.
(3) A third problem is that of the
order in which different kinds
of fossils are found in the strata of the earth.
(4) [020] The erroneous nature of the "Ecological Zoning" hypothesis
Part III. The Problem of Improving the Scientific Quality and
Acceptability of Creationist Publications
References 034
035
Figure - Solution Cavities